Main menu

Sober Up, part ten

Well, we have arrived at the point once again where many well-intentioned Americans lose all use of the human faculty of reason as they project their own fondest hopes and desires into the heart, mind and soul of yet another naturalist whom they consider to be their champion.

To be sure, the rapid pace at which President Donald John Trump is seeking to throw off his fanatical opponents in the false opposite of the naturalist "left" is an effort to govern by distraction. That is, the new president and his advisers have made a conscious effort to antagonize the "left" to demonstrate that such personages as United States Senate Minority Leader Charles Ellis Schumer (D-New York) and his collegues are self-righteous hypocrites. That such people as Schumer and the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, are hypocrites is not news, but this is the first time that a naturalist of the organized crime family of the "right" has decided to govern in a manner to antagonize his opponents deliberately rather than to appease them as former President George Herbert Walker Bush did with then United States Senate Minority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) and then Speaker of the United States House of Repesentatives, Thomas Foley, twenty-eight years ago.

President Trump's governance by distraction, no matter how well-meaning it may be, is itself a distraction from the fundamental truth that all must fall apart when individual men and their nations conduct themselves without any public reference to Christ the King and without submitting to the teaching authority of His true Church, the Catholic Church, in all that pertains to the good of souls. Nations must collapse into the nihilism and anarchy that is being fomented by George Soros, who is Jewish by birth and identity, and the organizations whe funds. There never be true justice within or security from threats without when men are at war with God by means of unrepentant sins.

Even though I know that I am repeating myself to a very few readers, here are two familiar quotations that are meant to be a dose of sober reality to those who think that United States of America has "turned a corner" now that Donald John Trump is two weeks into his term as the nation's forty-fifth president:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

This commentary, therefore, is for those who still have their sense of reason intact, but it is going to be the last of this current series as there is no real need to keep making the same points repeatedly.

Summarizing A Few Basic Points About The Mexico City Policy

WhileSober Up, part nine, provided extensive commentary on the restored and revised Mexico City Policy, it is useful to summarize a few basic points in order to demonstrate just how far the passive acceptance of the “lesser of two evils” has institutionalized grave evils over the course of time to such an extent that it is considered “unrealistic” to turn them back because, we are told, the “greater evil” lurking around the corner would have done worse things.

First, the restored and revised Mexico City Policy permits the surgical execution of innocent preborn babies in certain so-called “hard cases” in direct defiance of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Second, the restored and revised Mexico City Policy permits babies to be killed for “family spacing” reasons as part of necessary “family planning services.”

Third, the restored and revised Mexico City Policy permits employees of “family planning” agencies in foreign countries to counsel expectant mothers about abortion and to refer them to actual baby-killing butchers if they do so on their own time and off the premises of the agencies for which they work.

Fourth, the restored and revised Mexico City Policy is premised upon the legitimacy of the policies of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which funds the dispensing of contraceptive pills and devices in violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and without to those who are unmarried as well as those who are married. Perhaps it is useful once again to be reminded of the simple fact that it was a Republican president, Richard Milhous Nixon, who got the United States of America into the business of funding so-called “family services” because of the alleged "population problem.” (See Sober Up, part four.)

Although there are some who would retort that “we can never let the perfect be the enemy of the merely good,” I submit to the very few readers of this site that there is nothing “good” about funding contraception and other means of “family planning,” such as sterilization, that no Republican in public life today opposes because he is opposed to the frustration of the marital act and to the enabling of fornication and adultery by American taxpayer dollars. Each so-called “pro-life” Republican in public life today supports contraception as beyond question, and none oppose the enabling of immoral actions in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

In other words, the government of the United States of America should not be in the business of providing “family planning” services, whether domestically by means of Title X funding or internationally by means of the United States Agency for International Development and other of the Federal government’s programs.

Although I realize that I sound like a broken record, this is all the result, proximately speaking, of the passive acceptance of institutionalized evils by the administrations of so-called “lesser evils” to the point where even well-meaning American citizens, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, accept the basic premises of programs that are offensive to God, physically, morally and spiritually injurious to individual beings, destructive of families and thus of nations themselves.

The Sham of Defunding Planned Barrenhood Domestically

Let it be stipulated that the goal of defeunding Planned Barrennhood is both necessary and long overdue. However, the simple truth of the matter is that Title X funding, which dates back to 1970 during the administration of the great population-controller named President Richard Milhous Nixon, although the Federal government's first involvement in the funding of "birth control" had began five years earlier during President Lyndon Baines Johnson's exercise in statist social engineering called "The Great Society" and "The War on Poverty" (poverty won, by the way, as the only people who got out of poverty were the bureaucrats administering the programs), is immoral and destructive of social order. Period.

The current initiative to defund Planned Barrennhood would deprive an organization that has been evil from its very inceptions of Federal funding is premised upon the shifting that organization's funds to other organizations to provide contraception and other "family planning" programs that do not kill babies by surgical means. The blueprint of such a plan was outlined by a group of well-meaning naturalists of the false opposite of the “right”:

(CNSNews.com) -- “This is not a political issue. This is not a partisan issue. It’s not even whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. This is an issue about our humanity,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Wednesday at a news conference where he and other Republican senators called for a permanent ban on federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

“This bill would ensure that taxpayer dollars for women’s health are spent on women’s health . . . it would ensure we’re funding that and not subsidizing some scandal-plagued organization,” said McConnell.

Sasha Bruce, senior vice president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, spoke against the bill: “Instead of protecting women’s access to the reproductive health care that they need, anti-choice senators are attempting to misappropriate vital funds. Let’s be clear: this legislation will hurt women and greatly limit our ability to access high quality affordable health care.”

Ernst said that under her bill, 100 percent of the funds denied to Planned Parenthood would go to other women’s health care providers. “I want to make clear that there will be no reduction in overall federal funding available to support women’s health,” she said.

“It’s important to note that there are 9,000 community health center across the country which do everything that Planned Parenthood does, except for abortion,” said Sen. Rand Paul. “There’s absolutely no need for any public funding of Planned Parenthood. There’s no excuse for it, and we should end all funding for Planned Parenthood.”

S.1881 says that “state and county health departments, community health centers, hospitals, physicians’ offices, and other entities currently provide, and will continue to provide, health services to women. Such health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postpartum care, immunization, family planning services including contraception, sexually transmitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings and referrals.”

“Many such entities provide services to all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and provide services in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved populations,” the bill states.

The efforts to defund Planned Parenthood come after the pro-life Center for Medical Progress released videos that appear to show Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the transfer of tissue and organs from aborted babies.

Let me reprise what I wrote in 2015 when this plan, which remains the basis of current efforts to defund Planned Barrenhood, in order to demonstrate that it is both morally and strategically flawed:

The first—and very fatal—strategic flaw of these senators involves the use of the phrase “pro-choice” as this euphemism was coined by the pro-death movement to mask or anesthetize the reality of what each abortion, whether accomplished by chemical or surgical means, is the killing of an innocent being. No one has the moral right to “choose” to do anything that is evil. Human beings have the ability to choose to do evil, but they do not possess a moral “right” to do so. The use of this one phrase, “pro-choice,” concedes important rhetorical ground to the modern Aztecs, who clothe themselves in white medical gowns and surgical masks as they go about their bloody barbaric business. To attempt to placate so-called “moderate” voters by the use of the adversary's rhetoric accomplishes nothing other than to soothe the malformed consciences of those who refuse to see each and every baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means. There is nothing “civil” about the direct, intentional killing of any human being at any stage of his existence from the first moment of his conception until the moment of his death. Period.

Second, the “family planning” services that are provided by the nine thousand other “community health centers” are evil. To fund such programs is evil. To highlight support for the funding of such services is evil. It is evil to support, no less fund, act that deny the absolute Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Period.

Third, contraception, which Margaret Sanger, after all, sought to popularize a century ago during and after World War I, made the demand for surgical baby-killing inevitable. Divorce and contraception destabilized marriage and paved the way for abortion and the promotion of all manner of perversity under cover of law. This has resulted in the feminization of poverty, the rise of maladjusted children who spend most of their time in schools or day care centers or being shuttled back and forth between this or that step-family, rootlessness, violent crime, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol addiction and a variety of other social ills. This has also resulted in the acceptance of the so-called "lesser of two evils" to such an extent that the dose of the supposedly "lesser evil" becomes higher and higher in each succeeding election cycle, becoming indistinguishable ultimately from the supposedly "greater" evil.

Catholics must not permit themselves to be agitated by every legislative effort that appears to “do something good” even though based upon false premises. That so many Catholics continue to do so, however, is the result of their having been been subjected to one assault after another against their sensus Catholicus ever since the dawn of the Protestant Revolution, perhaps never more so than in the past century by the rapid advancements in the means of modern mass communications.

Moreover, although the new administration is getting high marks from leaders for the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, who serves on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, not one of these leaders has even acknowledged that President Trump, either acting on in a directive he has the power to issue to the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (once Dr. Thomas Price is confirmed, that is) and/or to the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug and Administration to rescind the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486, and to rescind the George Walker Bush administratation's decision to permit over-the-counter sales of the "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" to woman eigthteen years of age and over. It also remains to be seen whether Dr. Price, if confirmed, will rescind the "contraception mandate" that was issued by the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic named Kathleen Sebelius, who served as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services under President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro from April 29, 2009, to June 9, 2014.

These are not minor matters, and they can be done by means of administrative fiat if those in power have the will to do so. Even the administration, which is pushing hard for other matters that are not unimportant, mind you, will only go so far when it comes to threatening

Let's face facts: the defunding of Planned Barrenhood is a placebo that will make pro-life Americans feel good even though the Federal government of the United States of America will still continue to fund the chemical execution of innocent children and to pay for "voluntary" sterilization and the evil that is in vitro fertilization at home and abroad. It is way past time to celebrate as "victories" developments that are premised upon the acceptance of contraception and other means of "family planning" as "rights" that are beyond question.

Indeed, Supreme Court of the United States Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, a Catholic who has ruled repeatedly in favor of the surgical and chemical excution of innocent preborn babies and in favor of inventing a "right" for those engaged in perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to marry, explained in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsyvlania v. William Casey, June 29, 1992, that so many women had planned their lives around the availability of contraception that it was necessary for them to have access to surgical abortion if "in the event that contracpetion should fail," meaning in the event that God's plan for the use of that which is proper to married couple alone is fruitful according to its proper end:

Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable, representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. P. 835.

(e) The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. (Text of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.)

In other words, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, became the basis by which "people have ordered their thining and living" and thus were beyond question.

Although it should go without saying that the most of the "hierarchy" and the clergy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the United States of America have not opposed contraception as a matter of a legally protected "right," suffice it to say that an abject evil has become such an accepted part of social life that no its funding by the Federal government of the United States of America raises few objections from anyone among the ranks of "pro-life" leaders, noting the exception of the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder of American Life League, and the late Howard Phillips, the founder of the Conservative Caucus Foundation.

Just as ObamaCare ishere to stayin some form or another as the hapless naturalists of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" who have had nearly seven years to think about how to repeal this unconstitutional intrusion of the Federal government of the United States of America in the death careand insurance industries are still clueless as to how to deal with the fact that this travesty has become an institutionalized entitlement program (Leaked Transcript Shows Republican Uncertainity About How to Replace ObamaCare), so is it the case the contraception and abortion are in here to stay, and this is the result of both the political cowardice of the careerist politicians and of the conciliar officials themselves. Anyone who thinks that men and their nations can know any kind of "peace" and "security" while condoning grave sins under cover of the civil law is delusional.

Moreover, it is important to point out that President Donald John Trump considers the continued Title X and United States Agency for International Development funding of chemical abortifacients and other "family planning services" as something that is "good" and "necessary," not as a regrettable concession to being unable to do more than this. He wants to continue this funding, albeit without Planned Barrenhood being a beneficiary of such funding, and that is evil in se. Why is this so very hard to understand and to accept?

Perhaps it is good at this juncture to remind readers once again of the following sober dose of Catholic truth:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Some might object that Judge Neil Gorsuch, if confirmed by a majority of the United States Senate to serve as an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, will be in place one day to reverse Roe v. Wade, this presupposes that Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, who has twice upheld the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act (aka ObamaDeathCare), would do so and that the aforementioned Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who was appointed to the Court by President Ronald Wison Reagan, would have resigned and had been replaced, and it overlooks the fact that, as noted on this site most recently in Forty-Four Years Old: The American National Warfare Against Innocent Babies, the surgical execution of the innocent preborn will continue under cover of the civil law in all but seven states. The shedding of innocent blood under cover of the civil law will thus continue, and that is not a means to win the favor of God upon one's nation.

A secular commentator, writing in support of Judge Gorsuch, whose mother, the late Ann Gorsuch Burford, was a baptized Catholic before she apostatized, explained that this reality is not unknown to the members of the organized crime family of the naturalist "left" who are in histrionics over Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America even though he would be replacing the late Associated Justice Antonin Scalia, a Talmudic-friendly legal positivist who said that he could not use the Natural Law as a basis of judicial decision-making, thus leaving the balance on the Court unchanged at this time:

Even if the case reaches the high court, conservative justices on the Court might decide, as Chief Justice John Roberts did with Obamacare, that overturning Roe vs. Wade is too hot a potato and be reluctant to reverse a long-standing decision. Gorsuch himself has never ruled specifically on abortion.This whole process takes a while, and President Trump could possibly appoint more abortion hard-liners as vacancies occur to reach a solid pro-life SCOTUS majority. This is the most plausible scenario where the Court could overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Yet, the various liberals on the Court will hang onto their positions with their dying breaths to prevent this from happening. A pro-life majority is a possibility, in my opinion, only if Trump is re-elected to a second term. Even if the Court, one day, overturns Roe vs. Wade, it doesn’t mean that all abortions will be outlawed in the U.S. What it would mean is that individual states will then decide if termination of pregnancy will or will not be allowed in their jurisdiction. You might not be able to get an abortion in, say, Utah and have to travel to neighboring Colorado (as an abortion is an outpatient procedure, it doesn’t require an overnight stay in most cases). I doubt more than a few states would pass legislation to outlaw all terminations.

In any case, expect plenty of fireworks regarding Judge Gorsuch in street protests and, especially, when President Trump’s nominee hits committee hearings. Whether the candidate for SCOTUS is bent on overturning Roe vs. Wade or not, Democrats will jump at the opportunity to wreak havoc. But with regards to this particular issue, it’s a tempest in a teacup. For now. (Dear Liberals. No, Neil Gorsuch Can't Overrule Roe v. Wade.)

What this writer does not understand, of course, is that an overturning of Roe v. Wade, should it occur at some point on the future, would be premised on the belief that state legislatures are free to permit, restrict or prohibit the surgical killing of the preborn according to the "will" of the people in each state, which is precisely what the late Associate Justice Scalia believed. The truth is, of course, that men, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, have no authority from God to dispose of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, which bind all men at all times and in all places under any and all circumstances.

Thus it is that is necessary to point out to the readership of this site that a written constitution that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words is defenseless when agents of social engineering seek to deconstruct its plain meaning in order to accomplish nefarious ends. Such a written document is as defenseless in the hands of legal positivists as the words of Sacred Scripture are to Protestants and to Modernists. The only thing that can result from such a situation is the institutionalization and broad social acceptance of moral evils up and including to the point of abject moral licentiousness, which is hardly a foundation of social order no matter how hard a naturalist such as the current president tries to secure the borders and to rebuild the nation's economy.

[1] I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman. [2] Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit. [3] Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you. [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5]I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

[6]If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you. [8] In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and become my disciples. [9] As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. [10] If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father' s commandments, and do abide in his love. (John 15:1-10.)

It is not possible for men who make nations "great again" on their own unaided powers. They need to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and to rely under her sanctfying offices to enlighten their intellects and to strenghten their wills.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Why?

Kabbala Comes to the White House

We face a very insidious situation at this time as a president undertakes some actions that are undoubtedly in the public interest while winking at the institutionalization of grave evils. What makes the situation even more insidious is that the raging hatred that is organized and funded by all manner of Judeo-Masonic sources predisposes many Catholics who were up in arms against the efforts of the administrations of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to institutionalize and protect more and more moral evils under the cover of the civil law by means of taxpayer dollars to keep their peace, if not totally ignore, policies by a Republican president to promote the same evils by the same means.

To wit, none other than the practitioner of Kabbala named Ivanaka Trump Kushner, who is the wife of presidential counsel and fellow Kabbalist Jared Kushner, prevailed upon her father, President Donald John Trump, not to issue an executive order that would give employers more freedom to protect themselves, their families and their employees from sodomites in the work place:

Ivanka Trump also weighed, behind the scene, on a policy matter. Along with Kushner, she discouraged a possible executive order that would have affected LGBTQ workplace rights and she supported a White House statement pledging to leave intact a 2014 executive order that protects workers for federal contractors from anti-LGBTQ discrimination, according to a person with knowledge of Ivanka Trump's role in the discussion. Her involvement was first reported by Politico. (htIvanka Trump Has Big White House Role Without A Title.)

President Donald John Trump, encouraged by his Kabbalist daughter and Kabbalist son-in-law, has decided to keep in place one of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's many unjust and immoral executive orders because he has known, worked with and fully supported practitioners of perversity throughout his entire adult life.

Need I give you a reminder?

All right, you asked for it:

Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You--

Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And--

Lesley Stahl: You did.

Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.

Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?

Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

Please note that Donald John Trump is very sanguine about so-called “marriage equality,” calling himself a “supporter” of the “LGTBQ” agenda. A supporter, something that he indicated very clearly in his acceptance address at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday, July 21, 2016:

“49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted LGBTQ community – no good and we're going to stop it.

As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology – beleive me.”

Donald John Trump considers that one can base his identity by his willful decision commit and to persist in the commission of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a a belief that he shares with many of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is otherwise at odds with the new president on almost every other issue.

Remember also this important post at Call Me Jorge just before the election three months ago now:

This is just one facet of the insecure narcissist, Donald Trump. There is much more to the man which is better left to writing about if he is elected — his connections to Likud, the Jewish Russian mafia, the New York mob, key 9/11 players, etc...

If Trump is elected, will he get his wall? It’s doubtful but who knows. One thing which will happen is the alchemical transformation of the right into a pro-zionist, pro-pedophile, and pro-homosexual party as is currently being done in Europe. Another trend which will continue is the growth to epic proportions of the panopticon which laughably callsitself the most free country in the world. (Call Me Jorge.)

Not important?

Says who?

Not Saint Paul the Apostle:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

Saint Jude spoke of the fate of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha in withering terms:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7]As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. (Jude 1 6-10.)

None of this means anythng to Donald John Trump or his eldest daughter and son-in-law, and none of this means anything to the Congregational Protestant named Rex Tillerson, whose ExxonMobil has given "matching funds" in support of Planned Barrennhood and other nefarious causes for a long time, who personally convinced the naturalist, ecumenical, religiously indifferentist Boy Scouts of America, which has many ties to Freemasonry (see Boy Scouts -- Model of Masonic Subversion?for information. Caveat: This was written by a non-Catholic author in 2009 who is favorably to disposed to the Boy Scouts even though the organization defines "God" as "the ruling and leading power in the universe," which could have been written by a Freemason as it makes to reference to the fact of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost) to accept homosexuals as members:

Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, argued that Tillerson will be a boon for liberals and that his selection should be "alarming to conservatives."

"The ExxonMobil executive may be the greatest ally liberals have in the Cabinet for their abortion and LGBT agendas," Perkins wrote Monday on the FRC website. "That should be particularly alarming to conservatives, who've spent the last eight years watching the State Department lead the global parade for the slaughter of innocent unborn children and the intimidation of nations with natural views on marriage and sexuality."

Perkins, who criticized the potential selection of Mitt Romney for secretary of State in the past, also slammed Tillerson on his company's history of donating to Planned Parenthood and his role pushing to allow gay troop leaders in the Boy Scouts of America.

"To hear that Donald Trump may be appointing a man who not only led the charge to open the Boy Scouts to gay troop leaders but whose company directly gives to Planned Parenthood is upsetting at best," he wrote.

Perkins supported Trump during the presidential campaign, even standing by the candidate after the release of his "Access Hollywood" tape. But previous support for Trump didn't stop Perkins from criticizing Tillerson on gay rights and abortion.

"Trump calls Rex a 'world class player and dealmaker,' but if these are the kinds of deals Tillerson makes—sending dollars to an abortion business that's just been referred for criminal prosecution and risking the well-being of young boys under his charge in an attempt to placate radical homosexual activists—then who knows what sort of 'diplomacy' he would champion at DOS?" Perkins added. (Evangelical leader blasts Tillerson on abortion, gay rights.)

Dressed in a blazer and gray slacks, Eagle Scout Rex Tillerson — better known as the CEO of Exxon Mobil — approached the podium during a national meeting of the Boy Scouts of America at a Grapevine hotel last year.

The organization’s delegates had just voted to allow openly gay youths to join their troops and earn their merit badges. And Tillerson began laying out next steps in the same forthright tone with which he delivers financial results to shareholders.

“So we’ve made the decision we’re going to change. Now what?” he said. “No winners or losers. After we make the decision to change, it’s the mission.”

In between deals with Arab sheiks and Russian oligarchs, not to mention managing a flow of oil large enough to power Brazil, Tillerson has remained steadfast in his devotion to the Boy Scouts since he took over Exxon Mobil eight years ago.

In 2010, as Exxon and other companies were still reeling from the crash in oil prices during the world economic crisis, he agreed to serve as president of the Scouts at a time the organization was taking increasing heat over its position on homosexuality. He served for two years, at the same time Exxon was completing what could be a transformational deal to drill in Russian Arctic, before stepping down in 2012.

Among other titans of the energy world, the Exxon CEO’s history with the Scouts as a boy is well-known. Ray L. Hunt, the chairman of Hunt Consolidated and a longtime friend of Tillerson, said after hearing Tillerson talk about the Scouts and its emphasis on leadership and discipline that he came to consider his own lack of interest as a child a “shortfall.”

The image of Tillerson as an ever-polite Boy Scout adept at lighting a campfire with just a pair of sticks runs counter to his image among the public as a ruthless corporate executive hellbent on extracting oil whatever the environmental cost.

But those who know him maintain that the Boy Scouts code might as well be describing Tillerson when it instructs its members to be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful….”

Even with a compensation package that topped $28 million last year, the Exxon CEO is a regular at soliciting donations for the Scouts’ annual jamborees, said real estate developer Ross Perot Jr., an Eagle Scout himself and a friend of Tillerson’s.

“When Rex Tillerson calls me with his schedule, as busy as it is, to talk about Scouting, it’s very impressive,” he said.

Ties that bind

Tillerson’s close ties to the Scouts were evident last year when he took the stage to address the decision to allow gay youths to join.

The Boy Scouts of America declined to make board members or professional staff available to discuss their well-known Scout. And Tillerson, through the public relations office of Exxon Mobil, also declined to be interviewed.

Despite increasing pressure from gay rights advocates, Exxon has refused to create a specific policy barring discrimination against gay employees, as many Fortune 500 companies have done. Nonetheless, Tillerson was instrumental in lobbying the Scouts’ board to accept openly gay youths, said John Hamre, president of the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, of which Tillerson is a board member.

“I can’t get into the intimacy of these conversations. But he agonized over this. He prayed on it, and ultimately he came to the conclusion the only thing that can guide him here is what’s best for the young boys,” he said. “I think he became a key leader in helping the group come to a consensus.” (Rex Tillerson, An Eagle Scout to the Core)

Rex Tillerson had to "agonize" over making a "decision" that sanctions behavior that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. As a Congregationalist who believes that each particular congregation decides matters of doctrine and practice on its own, Tillerson used "consensus" to arrive at his decision to permit those who have chosen to identify as homosexuals to serve in the religiously indifferentist Boy Scouts of America. There is no place for objective moral truth when one is concerned about arriving at a "consensus." Rex Tillerson does not understand that Christ the King is a Majority of One.

Then again, his "congregational" beliefs deny any rights to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in public life, which is why it is important for the readers of this site to recognize that influential Kabbalists, the Kushners, within the White House and men such as Rex Tillerson are simply carrying on the warfare against Christ the King and His true Church that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella resisted in the Fifteenth Century and that King Philip II resisted in the Sixteenth Centry as Kabbala was helping to instigate and then to propagate the Protestant Revolution.

Although quite lengthy, the passage from William Thomas Walsh's Philip II is very important to read carefully in order to understand that whatever good that the new president wants to accomplish on the natural level must be undermined by the false, anti-Incarnational premises that are held by his own closest family members and advisers in complete conformity with the religious indifferentism of the Constitution of the United States of America, which has been used as instrument to propagate evil under the cover of the civil law from the time it was ratified on June 21, 1788:

In Spain to which Philip had returned, the instinct of a society to preserve itself had been sharpened by a keen awareness of the pattern of crucifixion running through the whole living epic of Christianity, especially in a country than had groaned and struggled under the violence of so many heretical movements. To the descendants of Iberian crusaders Protestantism was not the new and forward- looking institution that many of its new advocated in the north imagined. To Spaniard it was rather the recurrence of something as old as the Church.

The Spanish mystic felt about heresy as the Jews had always felt about idolatry. Against the iterated calvary of human endeavor he saw the eternal Christ as the heart, the foundation (as He said, the cornerstone) of the Catholic Church, the human member of the which might always be a fallible as the little group constituting the primitive Church – the materialistic and plausibly dishonest as Judas, as angry as James, as sluggish as Thomas, as uninteresting as Andrew, as ambitious as the youthful John, as rash and self-confident and mendacious, as penitent and long-suffering as Peter – this Church would welcome sinners worse than Mary Magdalen and publicans more despised than Levi before he was Saint Mathew; it would even stretch out its net to include rich Simon the Pharisee, if possible, and would pluck hard-handed centurions from under the eagles of Caesar redivivus a thousand times.

Nevertheless, in its vast and complex ramifications, as it grew to take in the whole world, there would always be a central and unchanging unity of doctrine, always the Holy Spirit, always Christ, daily renewed in the Eucharist. Also, in literal fulfillment of the prophecies of Christ, the hatred that had mocked, slandered and baited Him, misrepresented His teachings and actions, sought repeatedly to kill Him, and finally, by trickery, induced the power of Caesar to crucify Him – this too would always remain. There would always be a Caiaphas, the spiritually blind Abet Din, misleading the synagogue, always some crafty Anna, the Nasi or political Prince directing and corrupting the Sanhedrin. To these the Judases would flee when the Church rejected them, and these the Caesars of every age would use and despise. Even as good Jews would help furnish the sinews of the Church in many ages, so men remarkably like those scribes and pharisees whom Christ had called the children of the devil would perpetuate the hatred that had once crucified Incarnate Love.

No philosophy of history that leaves out of account this gigantic aspect of reality can be considered realistic. It is for this reason that the best hints for a philosophy of history may be found in the encyclicals of various Popes.

The intense hatred that Jesus foretold would follow all who sincerely believed in Him was manifested in the earliest days of the Church. When Saint Paul went to Rome to preach “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” he encountered such opposition from his own race that he somewhat bitterly wrote of “the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved.” It must be noted however, that later on he sent a letter to the Christians at Rome sternly warning them against the wickedness of Jew-baiting. The Acts of the Apostles abundantly testify that most of the first Christian converts were Jews. Jews of good-will formed the sinews of the Church. Everywhere another type of Jew, perhaps in a small minority, refused even to listen to the arguments he condemned, and prevented well-meaning Jews, as well as Gentiles from hearing the Gospel.

The author of the Apocalypse, too, adverts more than once to the same astonishing concentration of hate that followed the children of Christ as they scattered through the Roman world: “I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty, but thou art rich; and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.” And “Behold I will bring a synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.” The first major persecution of Christians in the Gentile world, that of Nero, was probably set in motion at the instance of the Jews surrounding his wife Poppaea.

There were Judases in every age to attempt to pervert the Church from within. Not a few of the later scandals of Christendom were the result of their work. Simon Magus, perhaps a precursor of Gnosticism, was only the first to attempt to purchase the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Arius, the Catholic Jew, would yet made an insidious attack on the divinity of Christ that would divide the Christian world for centuries. Valentinus, called the chief of the Gnostics by Saint Irenaeus, was a Jew of Alexandria.

As the colossal struggle continued century after century, the chief means employed by the Annas and the Caiaphas of each age to keep the mass of the Jewish people in ignorance of the true nature of Christianity, and to fan their misunderstanding of it to hatred, was the Talmud. This melange of wisdom, tradition and superstition contained the most scurrilous and vindictive blasphemies against Christ. Wherever its true character became known, it was condemned by Christian authorities; as in France under Saint Louis, and in Rome under Pope Paul IV, who had thousands of copies burned. Yes it survived, to carry into the modern world the spirit of the Pharisees who rejected Christ, with those rabbinical interpretations which made it, as Lazare noted, “the creator of the Jewish nation and the mold of the Jewish soul.” The most vituperative parts were omitted in translation. In dangerous times they were handed down orally by the rabbis.

The historical importance of this book may be judged from the opinion of the Jewish historian Graetz, whose inaccuracies, omissions and wrong judgments have poisoned the whole Jewish world, but whose interpretations of that world cannot be ignored. He goes so far to say, “We can boldly assert that the war for and against the Talmud aroused German consciousness and created a public opinion without which the Reformation, like many other efforts, would have died in the hour of birth, or perhaps would never have been born at all.

In the Middle Ages it was customary for Jews to deny that the Talmud contained anti-Christian libels. Pretense in the modern world is no longer necessary. The Talmud is recognized as a sort of link between the early Gnostic onslaught on the Catholic Church, and the even more serious modern assault behind the mask of Freemasonry. Celsus the Gnostic may or may not have been a Jew. “Yet there are connections between Celsus and Judaism that must be emphasized,” says a Jewish authority; “for example, he asserts that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a certain Panthera, and again that he had been a servant in Egypt, not when a child as according to the New Testament, but when he was grown, and that he learned there the secret arts. These statements are frequently identical with those of the Talmud. Celsus might have heard this from the Jews.” From this it is not difficult to guess the source of the modern legend of freemasons seeking to disparage Christ the Redeemer in subtle fashion by claiming him as one of their “initiates.”

Another Jewish book that had a powerful effect not only on Jews but on the history of the world was the Kabbala. Originally that part of the Mosaic Law which was handed down by tradition, it had become by the thirteenth century, a collection of occult and esoteric doctrines borrowed from Buddhism, Gnosticism, the neo-Platonists and all manner of eastern pseudo-mystics. Out of the dark labyrinth of its imagery came many heresies and revolutions; rosicrucianism, theosophy, and all modern freemasonry. As Rabbi Benamozegh wrote, “It is quite certain that Masonic theology is at root nothing else than Theosophy, and that it corresponds to the theology of the Kabbala.”

For a thousand years after she had emerged from the Catacombs – say roughly from the time of Constantine in the fourth century to the middle of the fourteenth – the Catholic Church successfully defended herself from such attacks both within and without. At times the very existence of the State and of society was threatened. In such crises, the Church not only permitted the use of force to avert worse evils, but even cooperated with it.

The Crusades were the defense of Christian homes, Christian women and children, Christian civilization, against an Islam deliberately bent upon exterminating them. A crusade ended the anti-social insanity of the Cathari who opposed marriage but taught suicide in that part of southern France known as Juea Secunda. The Inquisition followed them to Spain, and later saved the Christian Spanish State from the secret treachery of the pretended Catholics who were in league with the Moors in the war of liberation. As the ancient Jews had fought and slain idolaters, and had stoned spiritualists and similar dark heretics to death, so the Catholic Church, heir of the Jewish revelation, protected her children from destruction of body and soul while they were building the happiest and most balanced culture and civilization that have ever existed in this world.

The turning point in this vast drama (so far as our vantage point in time allows us to see) was the Black Death in 1346. It seemed to men as if Satan himself had burst the chains that had bound him for a thousand years. More than half the priests in the world died. Christendom was still staggering under this blow when other blows fee, one after another: the papal exile at Avignon, the Great Western Schism, the return of paganism under the guise of the Renaissance – all these onslaughts in the City of God itself while the Turks struck from without, gaining and laying waste on Christian country after another. Corruption and disorder were inevitable under these circumstances. Confusion became so widespread that only a divine institution could have survived it.

At the very moment when Columbus was claiming the new western world for Christianity and announcing the beginning of the Last Age of which he thought God had made him the harbinger, the stage was set for the most serious and widespread disaster the Church had yet had to face. It was something more important than the mere preaching of an exasperated monk against the abuse of indulgences; it was deeper than even the discontent of saintly men like More and Ignatius Loyola.

In the Protestant Revolt there was something more than the mere breaking away of the northern communities from the jurisdiction of Rome; much more that the nationalism to which Professor Carlton Hayes ascribes perhaps too much importance. There was a spirit of Protestantism in its first phase that sought something more than freedom; it sought nothing less (and this was more evident in Calvinism than in Lutheranism) than the utter destruction of the Catholic Church. Here was a hatred that began manifesting itself by the burning of churches and convents, the violation of nuns, the torture and execution of priests, the defiling of the Cross and the unspeakable desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

It was an old and international hatred. It was the hatred of the church-burning Donatist, the hatred of Islam, the hatred that had opposed Saint Paul in Rome and Saint James in Jerusalem, the hatred of Annas and the scribes and pharisees crying, “Come down from the Cross, and we will believe!” There was nothing new about it except the form it took; but the preparation and organization were better, and the time was ripe.

Nor was this Protestant phase of the revolt a peculiarly northern or German product, though it has been convenient to make it appear so. It might have happened in southern Europe. In fact, it almost did happen in France, especially in southern France, before it happened in Germany. Lefevre, under the patronage of Marguerite of Angouleme and other of the anti-Catholic House of Navarre, taught justification by grace before Luther did, and profoundly influenced Beza, Farel, Rousel, and other leaders who passed quickly through a Lutheran phase to the more radical organization of Calvinism. The roots of the revolution went deeper that the German affair. It was not local, but international.

If we may believe Graetz and other Jewish historians, the Jews played a much more important part in all this than Christians, for some mysterious reason, have generally admitted. Incalculable was the number of this virile and gifted race who had settled in all countries of Europe during the so-called Dark Ages and the Middle Ages; incalculable the number who were assimilated as sincere Catholics, or who, as pretended Catholics, formed the nucleus for any international revolt. They were everywhere, in communication with one another and with the Jews of the Synagogue. There were so many of the latter in England and France that one Jewish writer of the sixteenth century, often cited by modern Jews, attributed to this fact, “the inclination of the English and the French” to Protestantism. Dispersion, secrecy and organization gave them a power out of all proportion to their numbers, a power so remarkable that Napoleon Bonaparte suspected that the political structure of the Jewish State had survived under cover for eighteen centuries. Was there any historical foundation for such a theory?

There may or may not be significance in the fact that the title of Nasi (Prince or King of the Jews) which belonged at the time of the Crucifixion to Annas, father-in-law of the High Priest, or Ab et Din, Caiaphas, was assumed by one of the bitterest, most intelligent and more persistent enemies of King Phillip II – Joseph Miques or Menes, the Jewish international banker of the Spice Trust of Portugal and Antwerp, who had in his debt William of Orange and many other noblemen of the Low Countries. About the time when Philip was returning to Spain, this millionaire was establishing himself in Turkey, throwing off the last pretense of Christianity and assuming the antique and princely title of Nasi.

He was not the first rich Jew after the dispersion to be so designated. Every now and then, like a bell-wether among the stray sheep of Israel, there appeared some grave and powerful man who took this title. There was, for example, the learned Jew of Babylon, Machir, who settled at Narbonne in the time of Charlemagne. If it is only a legend, as the Jewish Encyclopedia affirms that he was appointed head of the Jewish community by the Emperor at the request of the Calif Haroun al-Rashid, there is no doubt, according to the same authority, “that he soon acquired great influence over his coreligionists. It is not certain, however, whether he himself bore the title of Nasi (Prince or King of the Jews) as his descendants did, who continued to direct the affairs of the Jewish community.” There was, for instance, a Nasi Levi who presided over a meeting of delegated from all the Jewish communities in southern France in 1215, as Annas had presided over the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Even then, among the Jewish communities of southern France, the anti-Christian Revolution was being silently prepared. Prosperity and wealth had reward the industry and intelligence of the exiles in Montpelier, Nimes, Tarbes, Carcassone – a score of places in that part of France where later the Huguenots would flourish – until they almost rivaled the medieval empery of their brethren in Spain. Slave-traders, purveyors of silks and other luxuries, usurers – they excelled generally in the commerce of intangibles, in the handling of money per se. Culture and power followed upon wealth. It was their great-tragedy that, having failed to understand Who Christ was, they could not get rid of the messianic consciousness for which they had been chosen and consecrated. Finding closed to them the only spiritual door to salvation, they were constantly driven to seek redemption in the here and now, in the resources of matter, in gold and power, in anything, anywhere but Christ. When all their kingdom had turned to dust in their patience hands, and the inevitable scourge of persecution came to scatter them again and again, they still followed leaders who kept them blind, and remained missionaries of what Saint John called “the spirit that dissolves Christ.”

In the thirteenth century, when the Catholic Church rejoiced in the full burgeoning of that rich and generous civilization she had reanimated and purified, the Jews were creating at Troyes a remarkable school of exegesis in which were being forged most of the arguments to be used by Protestant preachers against the Church and to be turned by the “higher critics” of later times aginst the heart of Christ Himself. The center and master of the group was a very rich Jew named Isaac Chatelain, better known now as Isaac of Troyes; a man learned in the Talmud, author of elegiac poems, endowed with many of the great Jewish virtues, such as deep and passionate loyalty to family and to race, but cursed with the intransigence of ancestors who perhaps had cried in a black hour, “His blood be upon us and our children.” He and his family incurred the wrath of the Christian populace, for the usual reasons. On Good Friday April twenty-fourth, 1288, the mode seized them, spurned their offers of gold and burned them.

The shocking holocaust avenged a long period of exploitation and of undermining of the foundation of Church and State. The heroism of some of the victims makes one regret the more that they were not in Italy, where the Pope or the hierarchy would undoubtedly have protected them. The wife of Isaac through herself into the flames. Her two sons and her son-in-law followed. Her two daughters also were burned, as was the wife of her son Alakadmenath, with Simeon the Scribe of Chatillon, Isaac Cohen, Baruch Tob Elem d-Avirey, and some others.

Rabbie Salamon, the son of this hapless Isaac, became famous inter the name of Raschi as founder of the Talmudic school of Champagne and the chief rival of Maimonides. Through Raschi the ideas of Isaac were transmitted to Protestantism. They were adopted early in the fourteenth century by a Franciscan monk of Jewish descent, Nicholas of Lyra. The arguments of this Nicholas of Lyra powerfully influenced Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. “Raschi and the Toraphists made Nicholas of Lyra,” wrote the nineteenth-century Christian apostate Renan, whose writings were financed and published by Jews, and who borrowed many of his brilliant sophistries from the arsenal of Narbonne. “and Nicholas of Lyra made Luther.” this has been said more wittily in the familiar epigram.

Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus no saltasset.

Another Jew who did valiant spade work for Luther's sowing was Elias Levita, founder of the modern Hebrew grammar and teacher of many Christians. “He, with Jacob Loans and Obadiah Sforno,” observes a Jewish historian, “must be allowed a large share in producing the Protestant Reformation.” Sforno was the teacher of Reuchlin and many others. The so-called Reformation, adds Abrahams, “drew its life blood from a rational Hebraism.” Luther naturally employed Jews in preparing his German Bible. Jews were the most successful agents in the printing and distribution of Protestant Bibles and tracts in all parts of Europe.

Not only the ideas of Luther, but the very occasion for their dissemination, was furnished by the fertile activity of Jewish minds. The Battle of the Books, preliminary skirmish in the way of ideas about to commence at Wittenberg, could never have occurred if the Talmud and the Kabbala had not first done their deadly work. There sat on the throne of Saint Peter at that time a Pope, Leo X, for whom very little is to be said from the Catholic point of view, except that, like all the Popes, he was orthodox in his pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. He was also a patron of literature, music and art; the employer of Raphael.

His chief concern, however, was not the welfare, much less the needed reform, of the Church, but his own amusement and gratification. There is evidence in Leo's conduct to lend color to the assertion that on being elected, he remarked jovially, “Let us enjoy the Papacy, since God has given it to us.”

In the most critical and decisive age of the Church, this descendant of Florentine usurers, this son of Lorenzo de' Medici, kind and generous intellectual, Cardinal at thirteen, Pope at thirty-seven, was too busy with his pictures, his hunting and his plays to give sufficient attention to the ruin of the world. The Jews have always been well pleased with him. Like all the Medici, he surrounded himself with them and showered them with favor and protection, even to the extent of allowing the printing and dissemination of the Talmud, of whose true nature he was perhaps in ignorance. This genial collector, to whom Luther was only a joke, went to his death (too suddenly for the last sacraments) with little more than a suspicion of his own share in the business, not only by the abuses permitted in connection with indulgences, but by his long negligence and vacillation in the matter of the Jewish books.

Johann Reuchlin, a friend of Erasmus, started the famous Battle. Saturated, like young Pico della Miranola, with the imagery and fanatical theosophy of the Kabbala, which he imagined he understood, he urged all Christians to study this and other Jewish books, for a better understanding of their own religion. A Dominican of Cologne, Jakob Hochstraten, replied to him publicly in 1519, protesting against the notion that the pseudo-judaism of the Jewish mind in revolt against its own Messias could possible cast anything but a baleful light on Christianity. As the controversy continued, there entered into the lists against Reuchlin another Dominican monk, Johan Pfefferkorn. This man was a Jewish convert to the Faith. Graetz calls him, with more vigor that truth, “an ignorant, thoroughly vile creature, the scum of the Jewish people.” Reuchlin, who defended the Jewish books, was of course, “a pure, upright character,” with admirable love of truth and a soft heart.” The fact was the Pfefferkorn was a good sincere man, a none too brilliant student, who carried the zeal of the convert to the verge of fanaticism; his vileness apparently consisting of his being a true Jew in the sense in which the Apostles understood the term. He recognized the divinity of Christ and the untruthful obscenity of the Talmud. Urging the people of his race to turn from the man-made books of the rabbis to the living Christ in the Catholic Church, he defended the Jews, against the worst charges made against them, including the ritual murder accusation. This did not save him from the lasting enmity of the Annases of his day. As for Reuchlin, Graetz might have added that he had not only a soft heard but a rather soft head.

Pfefferkorn accused his, in a pamphlet called Handspiegel, of having been paid by the Jews to disseminate their propaganda. Reuchlin replied with a violent denial in his Augenspiegel and after further vituperation, pro and con, appealed to the Pope. By means of a flattering letter, he gained the favor of the influential Jew, Bonet de Lattes, physician to Pope Leo X. The physician naturally had no objection to interceding with the Holy Father in such a cause. The upshot was the pleasure-loving Pope handed over this mere squabble of monks, as he considered it, to the Bishop of Spires, a youth of twenty-seven, who in turn passed it on to Canon Truchsess, a disciple of Reuchlin; who gave the decision to his friend, completely exonerating the Augespiegel.

The more discerning friends of the Catholic Church were highly alarmed. The Inquisition, better aware from long experience of what was going on among the Jews, appealed from the verdic to the Pope. Leo summoned both disputants to Rome in 1514. delay followed delay, until Reuchlin, by a false statement, got the case transferred to another judge at Spires, who again exonerated him. Another appeal was filed. The Pope continued to delay, however, as various rich patrons of Reuchlin, and such liberal but not very profound Catholics as Erasmus, brought pressure to bear upon him; as did also the Emperor Maximilian I. It was not until the Lutheran bombshell exploded in 1517, on the hard-fought field of the Battle of the Books, that the real significance of Reuchlin's proposals became generally evident. Even then the easy-going Pope made no decision.

At last, in 1520 the finding at Spires were reversed. The Pope forbade the Augenspiegel as a scandalous and offensive book, unlawfully favorable to the Jews, and condemned Reuchlin to pay the costs of litigation. By that time it was too late to stop the avalanche. The young humanists were now united behind Reuchlin. One of them, Hutten, attacked even the Holy See. These men became the nucleus of Luther's party. The real anti-Christian Revolution (for such time would reveal it to be in essence) appeared full-panoplied on the stage of Christendom.

I have not been able to find any evidence to Dr. Margolis's assertion that Luther was drawn into the controversy on the side of Reuchlin, or of Lewis Browne's, echoing that of Hyamson, that Luther was “a disciple of Reuchlin.” If Reuchlin had never existed, Luther might well have challenged the preachings of Eck. What is certain is that the bull-necked Augustinian, who despaired of human nature because he could not at once achieve perfection in his cell, found the soil well ploughed for him for such men as Franz von Sickingen and other pupils of Reuchlin; without which he might have made no more disturbance than Huss or Wycliff had. What is equally certain, but strangely kept well in the background of most historical research, is that the Protestant Revolt, far from being an “advance” or a “progressive step,” was a long retrogression toward the moribund Judaism of the Pharisees of the time of Christ. Its multitudinous offspring of more than 200 sects would lead in the course of time to a return of the dismal skepticism of the Sadducees. Caiaphas was a Pharisee, Annas a Sadducee. It was old Annas, the Nasi, who would have the last word.

If there is exaggeration in that astonishing but almost unnoticed statement of Cabrera, himself of a Spanish Marrano family, that “most of the heresiarchs and heretics of this present century have been of those people.” it is beyond question, as a Jewish historian says, that the first leaders of the Protestant sects were called semi-Judaei, or half-Jews, in all parts of Europe.and that men of Jewish descent were as conspicuous among them as they had been among the Gnostics and would later be amog the Communists.

The origin of Calvin (whose real name was Chaurvin) is obscure, as is that of his chief aide and successor, Theodore Beza. But Farel, Rousel and others of the stormiest preachers who carried their propaganda through Europe were of Jewish descent. Michael Servetus may have been, and was certainly influenced by Jews. At Antwerp in 1566 the chief minister of the Calvinist synod, which was the center of the most telling Protestant intrigue and propaganda in the Netherlands, was a Spanish Jew.

Modern research by Jewish historians has made it clear that in the sixteenth century large numbers of the English Protestants (and doubtless the most active in propaganda and organization) were Jews who had put on the convenient mask of Calvinism at Antwerp. For example, “from an early period,” says Dr. Lucien Wolf, “the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. The change will readily be understood. The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain and the Inquisition. It helped them in their fight against the Holy Office, and for that reason was very welcome to them. Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism. The result was that they became zealous and valuable allies of the Calvinists.”

There was something more in most Calvinists teaching than the desire for religious freedom and the reform of abuses. It was more like the ancient hatred which had followed the Catholic Church from her cradle, seeking not her reform but her utter destruction. Calvin himself was as ruthless in this regard as Mohammed. One of his letters to English Protestants declares that those who refuse to give up the Roman Catholic faith must be put to the sword. Calvinism quickly became an international movement, with a world capital at Geneva and with Calvin as a Pope ruling over a city with a regimentation uncomfortably suggestive of some totalitarian state of the future.

The most active intelligence, liaison officers and propagandists of this international army were the Jews. Only four years after Luther's first outburst, Cardinal Aleander, papal nuncio, reported that Jews were printing and circulating the German monk's books in Flanders. From the Netherlands they sent Bibles even to Spain, concealed in double-bottomed wine-casks. In Ferrara, a great Jewish financial center, they printed heretical bibles for distribution in Italy and elsewhere. No less a person than Carranza, now languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition in Spain, said that this was the reason why the church had to discourage the reading of the Bible in the vernaculars, save in approved versions. Even Jewish physicians and men of business were spies and propaganda agents. In the very year after Philip returned to Spain to stamp out Protestantism there, the Jewish Doctor Rodrigo Lopez, who was to find so unhappy an end in England, was passing over from Antwerp to London as a good Protestant.

A new spirit was abroad in the world, surely. It was not the regenerated Christian thing that Luther imagined it to be. It was the reappearance, in the most formidable array, of something older and far more terrible. The Cambridge Modern History tells us its effect was “to transfer the allegiance of the human spirit from clerical to civil authority,” or to put it more bluntly, to deliver Christ once more into the hands of Caesar. The Jewish historian Graetz expresses it otherwise: “the interest of the marketplace had driven the interests of the church into the background.” Is this not a way of saying that after the great betrayal the money changers were flocking back into the Temple from which they had been ousted by the medieval Church when she was most free and vigorous.

That was the thing, the old and evil thing, the insidious and destructive thing, that Philip was resolved to destroy, if possible, before it ruined the world. It would be far-fetched to say that he saw all its potentialities in 1559. He could hardly have seen what Pope Pius IX saw in 1849, when he declared that all the evils of the modern world (including Communism and its attendant miseries) had their origin in the tragic sixteenth-century assault on the Catholic Faith in the name of Protestantism.

Did Philip imagine, then, that the Jews were to blame for all the ills of humanity? Not even his bitterest enemies could fairly accuse him of that. A Jew-baiter in the vulgar sense he certainly was not. When an attempt was made to introduce into Spain an organization know as the Order of the White Sword aimed against Jews as Jews, he put his foot down against it. He knew and employed too many excellent men of Jewish ancestry to be taken in by any stupid and vicious theory of “Nordic” or “Aryan” superiority. It must have been apparent to a man of his shrewd common sense (in most matters) that even those Jews who persisted in the iniquity of attempting to destroy the Church could have accomplished very little without collaboration from within, from unworthy Christians. It always takes a Judas to complete the work of Annas and Caiaphas. (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, pp. 239-252.)

Although I realize full well that very, very few of the very people who continue to read this site will disagree strenuously with my assessment of our situation, it is my conviction that the facts speak for themselves. Kabbalism has long been the means to bring Antichrist to power, and the influence of the Kabbala upon the creation and direction of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has brought what Monsignor Henri de Lassus called the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy" in the Nineteenth Century to a point where even fully believing Catholics believe that the common temporal good can be pursue and maintained without reference to Our Lord, Christ the King, and His true Church, a belief that is propagated by the Talmudic-friendly lords of conciliarism, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, as part of what is said to be "Catholic" doctrine.

This is all a Judeo-Masonic trap, and it has been a Judeo-Masonic trap since July 4, 1776.

While I full well understand that "things" would have been worse under Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, what is sad to note, though, is that even believing Catholics have taken leave of their rational senses to project into Donald John Trump an agenda that he does not possess and to believe that his efforts in some areas, which are certainly to be commended, will stand the test of time. They will not. All that is not founded on the rock foundtion by Our Lord and His Catholic Church is bound to founder on the shoals of constant division and violence.

Pray for the country.

Pray for the conversion of President Trump and his family members.

Do not, however, become blinded by the emotions of the moment as to do so is find oneself waking up one day to see that Antichrist is fully enthroned as the leader of civil society and his "one world religion," which is why we must always keep in mind the following passages from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. Omnia instaurare in Christo.

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Most Catholics in the United States of America were recruited by Antichrist to be his apologists long ago precisely because of the "reconciliation" that Archbishop John Carroll and those who followed him made with the heresy of "religious liberty" as a "protection" of the life of the Catholic Church in a pluralistic society.

Most Catholics thus have been completely unaware that the very thing they exalted as a "protection" was, in truth, a trap to accustom them to think, speak and act as members of any Judeo-Masonic lodge, that is, naturalistically. And it was this very trap, which had different variations in Europe, of course, that helped to ensnare the minds of Modernists at home and abroad into becoming apologists of Judeo-Masonry in order to speak of that mythical "civilization of love" rather than to build up the Catholic City.

We are living in a time of fundamental apostasy, none of which can be issued by the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is not an "opinion." This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear in a passage from A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902:

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

Catholicism, nothing else. All must fall apart when men are divided over First and Last Things and spread error publicly while celebrating their “right” to do so.

The world of Modernity is premised upon the lie that it is possible for men to be well-ordered in their own personal lives that they can live within the framework of well-ordered republics. To profess believe in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "personally" without acknowledging His Social Kingship over our nations is, to quote Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, the Bishop of Poitiers, France, from 1849 to 1880, is to say that He is not God:

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?". . . .

"Neither in His Person," Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction, "nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: 'He is our peace, Who hat made both one. . .' (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: 'every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world' (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7). "So then, Card. Pie continues, "when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., 'Separation of Church and State,' for one, and the enigmatic axiom 'A free Church in a free State,' for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist."

Fr. de St. Just adds:

"Accordingly, the Bishop of Poitiers had always fought against THE SEPARATION OF Church and State. Moreover, he opposed all separations, that of reason and faith, of nature and grace, of natural religion and revealed religion, the separation of the philosopher and the Christian, of private man and public man. He saw in all these [separations] a resurgence of Manichean dualism and he had fought all these with, the supreme argument, the law formed by Christ. Therefore, it is in all truth, writing to [Minister of the Interior] the Count of Presigny, that he could render this testimony:

'We have nothing in common with the theorists of disunion and opposition of two orders, temporal and spiritual, natural and supernatural. We struggle, on the contrary, with all our strength against these doctrines of separation which is leading to the denial of religion itself and of revealed religion.'"

Fr. de St. Just returns at this point and introduces us to what is perhaps Msgr. Pie's strongest language, with regard to this entire subject:

"To this doctrine of the Church, which Msgr. Pie brought to the mind of the rulers of nations, the liberals would oppose acts favoring separation.

"Certain countries, Belgium and America, for example, haven't they proclaimed the separation of Church and State, and doesn't the Church enjoy a more complete liberty under such a system?"

None other than Pope Saint Pius X used the writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to help him explicate Catholic Social Teaching as a bishop in Mantua, Italy, and Venice, Italy, before he did so upon his elevation to the Throne of Saint Peter on August 3, 1903:

"[St.] Pius X, giving audience in the French seminary, declared to have 'often read and re-read' the works of Cardinal Pie . . . . This veneration of [St.] Pius X for the great Bishop of Poitiers is demonstrated for us by this account found in Canon [Paul] Vigue's 'Select Pages of Cardinal Pie': "A priest from Poitiers has recalled that one day he had the honor of having been introduced into the cabinet of the Supreme Pontiff, [St.] Pius X, in the company of a religious who was also from Poitiers. 'Oh! the diocese of Poitiers," the Holy Father exclaimed, raising his hands, when he heard the name Poitiers mentioned. "I have almost the entire works of your Cardinal,' the saintly Pontiff continued, 'and, for years, there has hardly been a day that I have not read some of its pages.' (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, testimonial pages.)

Let it be established once again, my good and vanishing readership, that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Saint Agatha, whose feast we celebrate today, refused to compromise on any point of the Faith. Unlike the conciliarists, many of whom have bowed down before the images of false gods and/or have permitted their "ministers" to conduct services in once Catholic churches, including the Chapel of the Apparitions at the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, and unlike the lords of Modernity, who believe themselves to be "gods" who can control us, their minions, Saint Agatha condemned the false gods when praising them could have saved her very life

S. Agatha the virgin was right fair, noble body and of heart, and was rich of goods. This glorious virgin served God in the city of Catania, leading a pure and holy life. Quintianus the provost of Sicily, being of a low lineage, was lecherous, avaricious, and a miscreant and paynim, and for to accomplish his evil desires fleshly, and to have riches, did do take S. Agatha to be presented and brought tofore him, and began to behold her with a lecherous sight; and for to have her himself, he would have induced her to make sacrifice unto the idols. And when he saw her firm in her purpose, he put her in the keeping of a woman named Aphrodisia, which had nine daughters, over foul, like unto the mother. This did he for to induce S. Agatha to do his will within thirty days. Aphrodisia and her daughters entreated the holy virgin to consent to the will of the provost, and sometime they made to her great promises of temporal goods and of great eases, and sometimes they made to her menaces of grievous torments for to suffer, and great pains, to which S. Agatha answered freely: My courage and my thought be so firmly founded upon the firm stone of Jesus Christ, that for no pain it may not be changed; your words be but wind, your promises be but rain, and your menaces be as rivers that pass, and how well that all these things hurtle at the foundement of my courage, yet for that it shall not move. In this manner answered she, and always wept in making her prayers, and much great desire had she to come to Jesus Christ by martyrdom and by torments. When Aphrodisia saw well that in no wise she would be moved, she went to the provost Quintianus, and said to him: Sooner should the stones wax soft, and iron turn to soft lead, than turn the courage of this maid, or to take from her the christian faith. I and my daughters have done none other thing night ne day, one after another, but to labour how we might turn her heart to your consenting. I have promised her in your name your precious adornments, clothes of gold, houses, lands, towns, servants, and great meinys, and all this she despiseth and reputeth them at no value. When Quintianus heard this, anon he made her to come tofore him in judgment, and demanded her of her lineage, and at the last he would constrain her to make sacrifice unto the idols. And S. Agatha answered that they were no gods, but were devils that were in the idols made of marble and of wood, and overgilt. Quintianus said: Choose one of two; or do sacrifice to our gods, or thou shalt suffer pain and torments. S. Agatha said: Thou sayst that they be gods because thy wife was such an one as was Venus, thy goddess, and thou thyself as Jupiter, which was an homicide and evil. Quintianus said: It appeareth well that thou wilt suffer torments, in that thou sayst to me villainy. S. Agatha said: I marvel much that so wise a man is become such a fool, that thou sayest of them to be thy gods, whose life thou ne thy wife will follow. If they be good I would that thy life were like unto theirs; and if thou refusest their life, then art thou of one accord with me. Say then that they be evil and so foul, and forsake their living, and be not of such life as thy gods were. Quintianus said: What goest thou thus vainly speaking? make sacrifice unto the gods, or if thou do not I shall make thee to die by divers torments. S. Agatha abode firm and stable in the faith. Then Quintianus did do put her in a dark prison, and she went also gladly, and with as good will as she had been prayed to go to a wedding. (The Life of S. Agatha.)

May Saint Agatha help us to remain steadfast in the Holy Faith as we pray for the day when the Social Reign of Christ the King will be established in our beloved land, that day when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will take place upon the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the world's true bishops.

Every Rosary we pray can be used as a powerful spiritual weapon to ward off the influences of the world, the flesh and the devil in our own lives and in that of the world around us.

Our Lady of Fartima and of the Holy Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Support Christ or Chaos

Support Christ or Chaos. We are totally dependent upon your generosity to keep this work going. I can't and won't promise you anything other than an assurance of a remembrance in our prayers before the Blessed Sacrament each day. Thank you.